Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani Respond to Readers

Last week, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. During the hearing, they weren’t asked any questions about political Islam by the Democratic women on the panel — an experience they argue is emblematic of a troubling trend among progressives to overlook the brutal reality of Islamist extremism. In “They Brushed Off Kamala Harris. Then She Brushed Us Off,” they write: “When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.”

The piece has nearly 1,000 comments. Below, the authors address some reader questions, which have been edited for clarity and length.

These ladies have a point. The left in general has given a pass to Islamism. We need to be able to criticize Islam’s worst without fear from political correctness. We need to demand from Muslim friends and colleagues the same, as well as verbal acceptance of basic Western and Enlightenment values such as women’s equality.

Let’s recapture the discourse and this banner from the right.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI ANSWERS:

I think this is a good way to approach the subject of Shariah and in particular the attitudes of many Muslims to the rights of women, the L.G.B.T. community, blasphemy laws, apostasy and dissent.

First, what is needed is critical self-reflection on the morals and agenda to which people on the left say they are committed. Look squarely at the real consequences of that agenda, both good and bad. Second, apply the idea of equality to all individuals regardless of their identity. Human rights are universal. And human rights are held by individuals, not by groups. The left today has a growing tendency to prioritize group rights over individual rights, partly driven by “intersectionality.” This is often what gets them in a moral bind. The rights of individual human beings should always come before those of the tribe or the collective.

If one finds white male sexism intolerable, then one should by definition find all male sexism just as intolerable. Excusing men of color, Muslims, immigrants or men living in non-Western societies for bad behavior toward women is an expression of the bigotry of low expectations.

The result of this mindset is that Christianity — still “the white man’s religion” in the eyes of many — is criticized for every misstep against women but Islam is protected from the glare of scrutiny. In its extreme form, relativism excuses Muslim men from universal standards because they are said to be victims of colonialism and of recent military invasions; because they are new immigrants who face cultural alienation; and because they cannot be deprived of their last source of pride: their domination over their women in their communities. I reject this line of reasoning. Anyone who believes in human rights should too.

In Europe, and in the United States, we need to defend universal women’s rights. Thorny religious and cultural problems need to be addressed, and discussedopenly. There is no reason why this should be, or be viewed as, a partisan issue.

I have taught English in Brooklyn for a number of years to immigrant women from all over the Muslim world, and I have ties to the community. So I was bothered by your article. Progressives abhor those abuses of women — F.G.M. (female genital mutilation), honor killings, etc. — that you mention. However, what Americans are fighting against here is the blanket vilification of Islam by everyone from the president to Republican congresspeople. None of us progressives favor extremes of Islam, or of any other religion for that matter. In this country (and in Congress) we have extreme right-wing Christians who want nothing more than to take away the rights of women. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you have allies in Republican men (or women). You don’t.

ASRA Q. NOMANI ANSWERS:

Thank you for your service helping immigrant women build their bridges to the United States. Just as you speak so passionately about the threat of “extreme right-wing Christians,” we argue that progressives would be well-served to be equally passionate about “extreme right-wing Muslims.” As long as progressives refuse to isolate “extreme right-wing Muslims,” as readily as we do “extreme right-wing Christians,” we will continue to face a situation in which the ill-informed will conflate “extreme right-wing” Muslims with those who are not. In the same way that we should not judge all Muslims by the actions of extremist Muslims, it’s not appropriate to judge Republicans by the actions of the far right. If progressives truly want to challenge the “blanket vilification” of Muslims, it would be helpful to rip off that blanket and differentiate “extreme right-wing Muslims” from those who are not. Just as we oppose white supremacists, we should oppose Muslim supremacists.

And what exactly are United States senators, regardless of their gender or political affiliation, supposed to do about the effects of Shariah law on women? That’s the question the authors of this article somehow never actually answer.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI ANSWERS:

Senators legislate and oversee the allocation of resources. We were testifying before the Homeland Security committee. Senators who are members of the Homeland Security Committee can:

1. Instruct the Department of Homeland Security to pay attention not only to acts of violence (jihad) committed in the U.S., but also to the indoctrination preceding it as part of counterterrorism efforts. Right now, almost all the official attention is devoted to acts of violence, and almost none to the ideology that drives, fuels and defends such violence. This was the main purpose of the hearing.

2. Instruct Homeland Security to find better partners. The department HS has previously partnered with individuals and organizations that are Islamist in outlook, with all the negative consequences for women and pluralist values this entails.

3. Demand closer scrutiny by the Department of Homeland Security of Islamist groups that claim to be moderate and reliable counterterror partners but are, in fact, neither moderate in their outlook nor reliable.

4. Urge the department to take seriously “honor” violence, female genital mutilation and other misogynistic cultural practices. The current F.G.M. trial in Michigan shows that such practices take place here in America just as they do overseas. The senators can demand investigations into these horrific practices and require vigilance on the part of authorities. Senators can also instruct Homeland Security to provide legal assistance to victims of female genital mutilation and other instances of “honor” violence so that they do not lose their immigration status if they leave an abusive situation.

While there are certainly examples of moral relativism, I believe it is wrong to say that people on the left do not speak out against child marriage or genital mutilation. In New Jersey there was a law passed regarding child marriage, but it was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie. One of the biggest opponents of the bill making the minimum age for marriage 18 are anti-choice groups, who believe that if a girl cannot get married, she will be more likely to have an abortion.

ASRA Q. NOMANI ANSWERS:

Earlier this year, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote about child marriages in the United States, citing, for example, the New Jersey law that you reference. How he wrote about the issue, however, speaks to the heart of our criticism of moral relativism among progressives. He wrote about child marriages as a phenomenon among “conservative Christian, Muslim or Jewish traditions,” but then only shared anecdotes from a “conservative Pentecostal church,” a “conservative Christian family” and an “ultra-orthodox Jewish family.” As progressives, we need to similarly name, identify and call out the “conservative Muslim” and the “ultra-orthodox Muslim” that advocate illiberal ideas. We often fail to do so, fearful of the backlash by Muslim interest groups that want to argue illiberal ideas have “nothing to do with Islam.” That’s a problem.

HLR ASKS: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a strong and very intelligent woman, whose best-selling memoirs bear witness to her experience as a Muslim woman.

The problem I and perhaps other American feminists have is her choice to align herself with the strident anti-immigrant right in the Netherlands and the U.S.A. They have adopted her as a poster woman for their anti-Shariah propaganda. Shariah means “law,” but non-Muslim anti-immigrant pamphleteers and the “alt-right” have equated law in Islam with all of the ills of Muslim countries, such as Somalia. In fact, as some Muslim scholars, including women commentators, have shown, law always depends upon interpretation.

Hirsi and Nomani would achieve more by joining the women’s resistance movement in the U.S.A.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI ANSWERS:

The Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, the American Enterprise Institute, Harvard’s Belfer Center and Stanford’s Hoover Institution — the places where I have worked over the last 15 years — are hardly “strident anti-immigrant right-wing” entities. Each of those institutions has a nuanced perspective on immigration and Islam.

The knotty issues of Islam and immigration deserve such treatment and shouldn’t be squeezed into the traditional left-right divide. One can, for example, be welcoming of immigrants, but demand that new arrivals accept full gender equity as a condition of living in a Western democracy. To me, that is a sensible requirement to ensure equal rights for women.

Many people — of course not all — who call themselves progressive tend to ignore, downplay or defend Islam and some of the patriarchal aspects of immigrant cultures. This tendency does nothing to help the real suffering of girls and women in majority-Muslim countries. Meanwhile, some on the political right provide meaningful help (either by money, by speaking out, as volunteers, legal aid, etc.) to the victims of Shariah and other immigrant cultures. Should we criticize them for doing so, or praise them?

The reader mentions the resistance. In my view, members of the so-called resistance have every right to engage in the sane politics of prudent opposition, but many leaders and followers of the resistance seek to delegitimize an election outcome that is not to their liking, and have succumbed to groupthink. That is not constructive.

Thank you for this great perspective. As a brown woman who works on prevention and treating female genital mutilation, child marriage and sexual assault, I think we need to be both respectful and fearless when tackling any harmful norms and practices, whether they are grounded in culture, religion or politics. But as a progressive, I have to check myself before criticizing any such practice lest people think I am a racist or imperialist. It’s a careful, fine line, and I’m very concerned with saying anything that will give ammo to the Islamophobic fundamentalist Christian terrorists who have been wreaking violent havoc on brown Americans all across the country since Trump seized power.

ASRA Q. NOMANI ANSWERS:

Thank you for your important work in the community. The tightrope that you walk is one that too many people today have internalized because of a very strategic campaign by Islamist governments, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to attack anyone who criticizes their ultra-orthodox Islamist interpretations of Islam. We call this network the “honor brigade.” Just as you are vigilant about “Islamophobic fundamentalist Christian terrorists,” we must safeguard against fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, for the sake of human rights and women’s rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights and other basic principles of human dignity. As you likely know, Muslims around the world — and others, of course, too — face “violent havoc” from Islamic extremism. We have to speak bluntly about the threat of Islamist interpretation to defeat it.